Buried in the small print of the government's response to the Data Sharing Review is a line which grants the secretary of state power "to permit or require the sharing of personal information between particular specified persons, where a robust case for so doing exists."
Although the Information Commissioner, who wrote the …

COMMENTS

Basically..

"The response calls for primary legislation to provide the Secretary of State with a power by Order to remove or modify any legal barrier to data sharing by "repealing or amending other primary legislation, changing any other rule of law, creating a new power to share information where that power is currently absent"."

I have some data for you Jacqui:

fuck the title

I'm tired of trying to think of calm, measured responses to these idiots. Fuck it. Kill them all. Could they please do us all a huge favour and kill themselves and stay the fuck out of our fucking lives.

Labour pary rule

It would be good to examin what 'a minister will only do it if it is int the public interest' really means.

In reality it means when a minster (labour party member) feels it would be good for the labour party.

My wife is a doctor - she tells me that a few years ago the Labour party renegotiated the dictors pay contracts inserting a clause allowing them to force a contract on doctors if the national interest requires it. Last year a new round of negotiations was finished off with the threat to use this power - because the labour party wanted to avoid problems.

There are more examples to this dictatorial socialist strain. See the original Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2006 - where a minister (labour party member) woul dbe able to ammed any law for almost any purpose at will. THereby bypassing parliament. Luckily the Bill was ammended before becoming law but there it remains - a testament for all who care to read. http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/index.php

Trust me, I'm a Spin Doctor

>>A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said the ICO opinion would be made in writing and would be available to both Houses and that draft Orders will also be supported by a Privacy Impact Assessment.

She added: "The power will be exercised only in circumstances where the sharing of the information is in the public interest and proportionate to the impact on any person adversely affected by it."<<

And of course, no government organisation has used RIPA inappropriately. No government organisation has lost data. No government organisation has shared citizens personal data with public or private organisations in defiance of the data protection laws. And no government organisation would dream of defying the ICO.

Democracy ? We've heard of it, but it's not really for us, you know ?

"A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said .. The power will be exercised only in circumstances where the sharing of the information is in the public interest and proportionate to the impact on any person adversely affected by it."

Well let's see :

a) We don't believe you

and b) when said power is that of "repealing or amending other primary legislation, changing any other rule of law, creating a new power to share information where that power is currently absent"

Then the impact is literally on "any person", all persons in fact. I suppose whether one would consider that the populace is "adversely" affected by giving a Home Secretary the ability to effectively mould the law the land to suit their own particular ends depends on at least two factors, viz whether the Home Secretary is a sane and rational person with all our best interests at heart, and how you feel about democracy, since adopting such a measure would effectively drive the final nail into the coffin of the pretence that we have some.

Example : "A spokeswoman for the ICO told us that information transferred in this way will still be subject to the Data Protection Act."

Until the Home Secretary repeals it because it's getting in her way. RIPA ? Gone the same way*. Human Rights Act ? History. Piff paff pooff. All the protections they afford us, gone. And I personally don't doubt for one moment that the current incumbent of the HO would happily do that in the blink of an eye, because, well, I was going to write something wordy, but like NB says above, it's becoming harder to think of calm and measured responses, so let's go with because she's a vicious, ignorant, power crazed bitch to whom reason is as kryptonite is to superman.

And I still can't get used to hearing the phrase "Ministry of Justice", makes my bloody skin crawl.

*If you think RIPA is a piece of crap, wait until you see what happens without it.

@Alex

How is this not 1984?

So, with regard to data protection and data sharing, the secretary of state is given unyielding authority to literally write new laws, and amend or remove current laws, with no approval and no oversight? And he/she is not accountable and does not have to answer to anyone? How is that not a dictator? I think the US and UK need to attack the US and UK so that we can "democratize" the US and UK like we did to Iraq.

"The only caveat to this is that the minister *SHOULD* get the ICO's opinion before making such an order." In other words, it would be nice if they get the ICO's opinion, but this toothless wording is completely meaningless and was probably only thrown in there to appease the people who think the government won't abuse the power.

So basically, the secretary of state can unilaterally decide that it would be in the public's interest to sell the data in the ID card database (once it's up and running) to the highest bidder, and there is no debate and no recourse (since the secretary of state would be given unlimited power to alter the laws as he/she sees fit).

Why is it that the US and UK are in a race to see who can become an official dictatorship first?

And seriously, is "Ministry of Justice" a real organization in the UK? Is it just me, or does that sound like it's ripped straight from 1984? Do you have a Ministry of Truth as well?